The Court of Appeal has dismissed Muhammad Nasir Yaqub’s appeal against the refusal to quash decisions that placed him in the process for possible deportation under the Immigration Act 1999. The court affirmed the High Court order. It did not itself make a deportation order.
Yaqub had applied for a residence card as the permitted family member of his British-citizen brother, Muhammad Qasir Naveed. The Minister for Justice refused the application in 2016, but a review succeeded in July 2020 and permission to remain was granted. The Minister later revoked that permission on 8 December 2020, finding that it had been obtained through fraud. Yaqub did not seek a review of the revocation, and that decision was not challenged in these proceedings.
The case followed an October 2020 Garda visit to a Londis shop, where Yaqub was working while initially identifying himself as his brother. The Minister’s account of the visit said Yaqub admitted using his brother’s PPS number for five years and said his brother lived in the United Kingdom. In October, the Minister gave Yaqub 21 days to respond to concerns that the information and documents supporting his residence application were false. He did not respond.
The appeal concerned later decisions: the Minister’s May 2021 determination that the case did not fall within the EU-law process discussed in Chenchooliah, and the notice proposing to make a deportation order under section 3. Yaqub argued that findings made during the earlier application process — including that his brother had exercised EU treaty rights in Ireland and that Yaqub had belonged to his brother’s household in the UK — continued to protect him despite the revocation.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that the Minister was entitled to treat the application as tainted by fraud in its entirety, and that the earlier findings could not survive the revocation of permission obtained on that basis. The court also rejected the fair-procedures challenge: the Minister had set out her concerns and given Yaqub an opportunity to address them in writing, which he did not take. No oral hearing had been requested, and the court found no identified issue that required one.
The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. It said the Minister was entitled to costs, while allowing Yaqub ten days from judgment to make a written submission seeking a different costs order; the Minister would have the same period to reply.